After 9/11- If YOU Were the President

The "aftermath?"

Hmmmm, maybe I missed something, but I thought the overwhelming POV's posted here, as well as the purpose of the 9/11 Commission, was concerned with what preceeded that fateful day.

Am I wrong?

infowarrior - I was vague on purpose. What I was getting at is what would you do if you are the president, and 9/11 had happened. How would you have handled the terrorist threat, and what would be happening today if you were the one who were able to steer the government? Clearer?

Good luck Phoenix. I've asked that question many times of those dissatisfied with what has been done, and it has been evaded every time. I look forward to reading the answers.
(in other words: bookmark)

I was white hot angry when 9/11 happened. I still am. The people who did that unspeakable thing and commit other equally atrocious acts around the world are subhuman, scum, and evil to the core.

If I had been president I would have had the power to do something about it. I would have called my advisors in immediately and ordered them to get to work to close up any and all security loopholes and formulate a feasible response. I would have gone on television to reassure a shocked and grieving nation that I was taking measures to ensure their security. I would tell them that those who did 9/11, funded 9/11, encouraged 9/11, helped plan 9/11 would be hunted down like dogs and be killed or brought to justice, whichever seemed more expedient at the time. And I would have readied the military to go after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and, while that operation was going on, would be selecting my next target.

Pretty much what President Bush did I guess.

The one thing I would like to think I would not have done in that matter is to pull punches to appease the few who opposed him at that time. I wish when he gave that speech Tuesday night, he had come across more forcefully as white hot mad and more firm in his resolve. I wish he would drive home more that the enemy isn't the administration and/or the military but it is the terrorists themselves.

The strongest man in the world, however, would wither under the onslaught of Bush's enemies and a hostile press. All things considered, his speech was just awful, but the content made me proud. As president after 9/11, I would be a better speaker. Not a better president mind you, but a better speaker.

Great question, Phoenix!

I would have temporarily closed our borders, allowing only US citezens into the country... until the INS got completely revamped and was working like a well oiled machine.

I would have sent people over to get Bin Laden... and not just track him until election time to get more votes.

That's about it. I wouldn't have messed with Saddam, but I would focus on the countries allied to him that are physically close to the US... so they wouldn't launch nukes at us.

The action Bush took against AlQaeda and their protectors the Taliban was IMO exactly correct. The error as I see it is that instead of continuing the all out hunt for Bin Laden and the elimination of the Taliban he allowed he obsession with Iraq to divert attention, troops and purpose away from that mission. He should have stayed the course and stayed the hell out of Iraq.

1.) I would have capitalized on the incredible goodwill from throughout the world after 9/11 to work to contain terrorism globally, instead of squandering that goodwill.

2.) I would have gone after specific targets in Afghanistan, and made sure that a specific, achievable military plan was made and then given enough resources to succeed.

3.) I would have NOT started another campaign in Iraq, which was not behind 9/11, in the midst of the Afghanistan campaign. Tommy Franks was evidently rather P.O'ed about that one. ("String of obscenities...")

4.) I would have given the inspectors more time in Iraq. It was working.

5.) I would NOT have ignored evidence, sent officials back to find the "right" evidence, and bamboozled the American public into thinking that invading Iraq was of primary import ("mushroom cloud"). IF I truly believed it was necessary, I would have put more effort into diplomacy with other nations, and created a viable plan that prevented predictable (and predicted) disasters such as the looting and Sunni resistance.

6.) I would pay close attention to America's finances and not squander the surplus, not to mention dig us into a deep deficit. I would definitely not throw tax cuts at every ill. (This guy defines idee fixee. Iraq. Tax cuts. Iraq. Tax cuts.)

That's all for now.

Sozobe, using 1) of your post - capitalizing on the good will. Exactly how would you have done that?

Not alienated them, mostly. Proactive. You guys want to help us, great. What can we do? Let's do it.

Right on Rosie!

And you don't feel that was done? Why?

Foxfyre
We alienated almost the entire world when we thumbed our nose and invaded Iraq.

I have commented on that on other threads au and would like to stay on track on Phoenix's thread here. Here I'll just say I disagree. I submit that GWB did contact every country in the world we were on speaking terms with and gave them a chance to join in. Many many did. So, staying on point here, how could he have done it better?

You're the president. What would you have done?

Soz, pretend I'm your corner man

Ok, you're getting in the ring with a relentless puncher. Don't let her sucker-punch you with the RIGHT. Use your LEFT jab. Feint feint feint.Alright. Go gettem!

Foxfyre
Few nations of any consequence sided with Bush. The UN and most other nations opposed.



And when they refused and were opposed to a preemptive invasion he went against world opinion and attacked.

She's also ignoring the fact that most countries that went with the shrub did so against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of their populations.

I believe we're mixing things up. Phoenix is referring to 9/11 and you, Iraq. Let's keep them seperate for the sake of the current debate.

well, I would have nuked France and sent a message via the UN saying "Who Else Wants to Party with the Boss?"

BBB
I agree with Richard Clarke's three key agenda items:

1. The president should have engaged in a massive effort to eliminate our vulnerabilities to terrorism at home and strengthen homeland security and first responders.

2. The president should have launched a concerted effort globally to to counter the ideology of al Qaeda and the larger radical Islamic terrorist movement with a partnership to promote the real Islam, to win support for common American and Islamic values, and to shape an alternative to the popular fundamentalist approach.

3. The president should have been active with key countries not just to round up terrorists, end the sanctuaries, dry up the money, but also to strengthen open governments and make it possible politically, economically, and socially for them to go after the roots of al Qaeda-like terrorism.

The priority countries are Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Nowhere on the list of things that should have been done after September 11th is invading Iraq, which has diverted attention and resources better used elsewhere. Invading Iraq played into al Qaeda's plans to force a Christian country to invade an oil-rich Muslim country to further al Qaeda's recruiting interests and spread anti-American hatred. Dumb move by the Bush administration. The billions we are spending on the Iraq war would have produced more safety for America and for people in all nations if it had been used in pursuit of this agenda.

BBB